McCain’s Iraq position becomes even less coherent

January 23, 2007

To help kick-off a new Capitol Hill newspaper, The Politico, Roger Simon interviewed John McCain (R-Ariz.) about his take on the war in Iraq. Given McCain’s countless recent comments on the subject, you’d assume this is well-tread ground, but Simon caught a few gems.

With his presidential hopes tied to an administration whose Iraq policy he supports but cannot control, John McCain for the first time blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the “witch’s brew” of a “terribly mishandled” war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat. […]

Although McCain had once lavished praise on the vice president, he said in an interview in his Senate office: “The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.”

McCain added: “Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” Donald Rumsfeld served as President Bush’s secretary of defense from January 2001 to December 2006.

In 2004, McCain described Cheney as “one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had.” Apparently, McCain now knows better. I’m just entirely sure what changed McCain’s mind. As he sees it, Cheney’s biggest mistakes came in 2002 and 2003, after which McCain sung his praises. Now, Cheney and McCain seem to agree on policy — so when did the VP “badly serve” Bush?

But the real jaw-dropper of the interview came when McCain “opened the door to the possibility of a U.S. troop pullback to the borders of Iraq should the president’s planned troop surge fail.”

…McCain also said a withdrawal of troops to the borders of Iraq could be an option if the troop surge fails.

“If this strategy doesn’t succeed, we will have to devise another strategy,” McCain said. “But I have to hasten to add there are no good options.” One of those options, McCain said “is to withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering. Maintaining our bases in Kuwait and other places. There are a lot of scenarios.”

Wait, McCain is now open to some form of redeployment? He’s spent the last couple of years suggesting that supporters of redeployment are advocating retreat and defeat, but now he’s open to a position he’s rejected as completely untenable?

Taking a step back, the broader debate seems to now have three groups:

* Redeploy U.S. troops now — Escalation hasn’t worked the previous four tries, and it won’t work now. It’s time to redeploy and get our troops out of the meat grinder.

* Never redeploy — No matter how long it takes to achieve some hard-to-define “victory,” U.S. troops need to stay right where they are. An open-ended commitment lets the world know we’re there for the long haul, no matter the cost.

* Redeploy sometime — A category McCain seems to have invented for himself, this suggests this new so-called “surge” really is the last try. If (after?) it fails, redeployment might make sense.

If you’re starting to think McCain is just flailing around, struggling to forge some kind of coherent approach to the war, panicking about his political future, and failing on both counts, we’re on the same page.

Just a slender little reed,
wafting to and fro.

Bending gently in the breeze.

  • McCain would make a fine Republican president. Yes, perfect. Rush Limbaugh and Co. need to start talking this guy up and stop spreading lies about everyone else (must be the cyst).

  • ***…withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering.***

    As flip-floppish as McChameleon-Man has become, I think there’s something very eerie in his emphasizing “Kuwait”—especially since a flip-flop from withdrawing to the Iraq-Kuwait frontier would be to “withdraw” to the border with Iran….

  • McCain’s union with the Bush White House has always been like a Michael Jackson marriage. It’s a sham done solely for expedient purposes and the people involved in the union seem to be the last people on earth to realize it was always a mistake.

    McCain didn’t even get that his whole surge idea was a political tool to say I told you so and not a viable strategy in reality. He should have unveiled his surge after the prez made up his plan so John could go on he Sunday morning talkies and appear to be smarter. Timing is everything and McCaiin bluffed too early.

  • One of the problems with McCain is that he has always wanted to be president more than he has wanted to suceed in Iraq. And since he’s been a Bush supporter, this is a big problem.

    To be the next president meant sucking up to Shrub and company. So he’s been carrying water for these guys while it’s painfully obvious that that Shrub is incompetent and his team is making bad decision after bad decision in Iraq.

    If there was a chance to fix Iraq – he turned it down. He could haved signed on with Kerry in 2004 and had a chance to clean up the mess the Decider’s war of choice had become. But McCain choose to be a cheerleader for fools and to have a chance to be pres in 2008 rather than a chance to “win” in Iraq.

    So now Iraq is a broken egg and he enabled the fellow who broke it. He’s in a lose – lose situation now. Support the president and go down swinging or jump ship and advocate “cut and run”. Either way is not good for his political ambitions.

  • Hey CB,

    I count two or more flip-flops in this latest article. How many times has McFlipFlop contradicted himself now?

    McCain deserves this fate for sticking the knife in Kerry when Kerry was “swiftboated” in August of 2004.

  • McCain should hire Tim Russert as campaign manager. They’re just so good together during their McCain for President rallies EVERY Sunday morning…

    I hope they run a Valentine’s day special….

  • This “new” option would at least be sound military strategy in that if, or rather when, the latest surge fails, the game will well and truly be up. So while the country has at least some remaining semblance of order, it would be wise to move our forces near the borders so they don’t have to fight their way through hostile territory to escape when the country finally explodes into full-scale conflict.

    How and when they would evacuate the Green Zone and the super-bases when the time comes remains to be seen. Let’s hope they have lots of choppers available. They will need all they can get.

  • From politico article
    “If this strategy doesn’t succeed, we will have to devise another strategy,” McCain said. “But I have to hasten to add there are no good options.” One of those options, McCain said “is to withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering. Maintaining our bases in Kuwait and other places. There are a lot of scenarios.” But he also said the current troop surge strategy “has to be given time.”

    Withdrawing to the border of Iraq could mean two things, both of which scare the shit out of me.

    1)We are inside the borders one of Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Syria, or Turkey. Knock our friends off the list and I think you know who’s left.

    2)Withdraw from Baghdad to the borders of Iraq and basically surround it.

    While the first might seem like the most likely conclusion, it does look more and more like we are going to attack Iran everyday, the 2nd one is what I think McCain meant and could be even worse.

    Imagine a Baghdad where we have completely withdrawn and sectarian killing goes on unhindered by our presence, an Iraq surrounded by American forces to prevent foreign “interference” with events in inside. Given the raw population numbers in Baghdad the death toll is not likely to pass the holocaust but it could come close. All the while, the world will be watching us watch.

    In addition large amounts of American military forces will be in close proximity to both Iran and Syria.

    I hope McCain comments were completely unhinged otherwise this is SOO not going to be good for us either way.

  • #14 vividvew paints a scary scenario (a couple really).

    Unless McCan’t means to include the Kurds in “other places”, he’s basically leaving them to die in a genocide too.

    But the idea of pulling out of Baghdad, where half the population of Iraq (used to) lives is just sick. However, the ethnic cleansing that is going on there slow motion now isn’t going to change in final outcome with us there or not.

    Thank you BG2 for leaving us no good options in Iraq.

    • Comments are closed.